Five Reasons Why SEO Is Going to Lead to Buying Traffic
June 24, 2011
This week I have engaged in five separate conversations with super-bright 30 somethings. The one theme that made these conversations like a five act Shakespearian comedy was SEO or search engine optimization. The focus is on getting traffic, not building a brand or contributing to a higher value conversation.
Google continues to entertain search circus goers with its trained Pandas. These Pandas do some interesting things; for example, the gentle mouthing of the word “panda” causes heart palpitations among the marketers whose jobs depend on boosting Web traffic. Let’s face it. Most Web sites don’t get too much traffic. One company which I am reluctant to name was excited to tell me it had 800 unique visitors in May 2011.
Move the world? Maybe. Move a nail salon’s Web traffic? Probably a tough job.
Okay. No problem if the 800 visitors were the global market for the firm’s product. But the 800 included robots, employees, consultants, and the occasional person looking for this firm’s specific type of archiving software.
With Web site costs creeping upwards, bean counters want to know what the money is delivering. The answer in many cases is, “More costs.”
Not good news for expensive, essentially unvisited, Web sites. The painful fact of life is that among the billions of Web pages, micro sites, blogs, and whatever has a url only most get lousy traffic.
Archimedes, by way of Yale, said, “Give me a lever big enough and I’ll move the world.” The world? Maybe. Traffic to a vacuum cleaner repair shop in Prospect, Kentucky? Not a chance.
Pumping up traffic to a tire store or a nail salon or even a whizzy Internet marketing company is a tough job. I gave up on traffic after we did The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) right before we sold the property to CMGI. What the heck was traffic? What could or should one count? Robots? Inadvertent clicks?
That experience contributed to my skepticism about reports about how many visitors a site has.
“Google Quietly Launches Panda Update Version 2.2” is a good write up about the fearsome Panda. Like A Nightmare on Elm Street, the Panda keeps on coming, wrecking weekends for traffic crazed marketers. Bummer. I learned:
Supposedly, one thing Google was going to address with Panda 2.2 is the issue of scraper sites – websites that republish other people’s content on their own site, usually making money from Google AdSense in the process – outranking content originators. As Frank Watson noted, "Google created the mechanism that clogs its own data centers and overwhelms its own spam battlers."
Ah, Google as the prime mover and its nemesis.
Now the five reasons:
- Google will offer sites a way to get traffic. Buy more Adwords. Simple.
- Traditional Web sites are not the preferred way to get information in some demographic segments; for example, those under 20.
- Social networks are not only better than results lists; social networks are curated. Selection is better than relevance determined by tricks.
- Content is proliferating so brute force indexes are having to take short cuts to generate outputs. Those outputs are becoming less and less useful because other methods of finding are fresher and more likely to be on target
- Users don’t know or care about the provenance of certain types of content. Accuracy? Who has time to double or triple check. Uncurated results can be spoofed.
A tip of the hat to the SEO experts. Most of the relevance problems in the major brute force indexes are directly attributable to both the indexing companies and the SEO professionals.
So what about the users? Eureka. Ask one’s social network, Facebook.
Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Strange Bedfellows: Search and Neuroscience
June 17, 2011
Oh, fair science, thou has done it again!
If you thought you could objectively make selections, “Expertise Provides Buffer Against Bias in Making Judgments, Study Finds” may change your mind. In taking a closer look at the human decision making process, researchers stumbled on what could be a small slice of gold for a number of fields.
To set the scene, twenty each of experts and non-experts were asked to evaluate artwork, while behind the scenes business sponsorships and monetary incentives were staged on certain paintings. Per the article:
In the behavioral study, most non-experts preferred the paintings displayed next to the sponsoring logo of the company that they had been told was paying them, while there was no effect of sponsorship within the expert group.
Advertising companies seem to have been operating off of this principle for ages to push products and services. Applying the results to the search field, one can consider that individuals without experience will also select hits based on their biases. This filtering goes undetected and is inevitable. So it practically goes without saying what easy targets said non-experts will be to fool with false assertions of what is perceived as credibility of a Web site.
Provided it steers clear of experts, did SEO just get a little easier?
Sarah Rogers, June 17, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
The Panda Attacks Again: An Epidemic Signals a Relevance Crisis
May 18, 2011
“The Second Wave of Google’s Panda” from Digital Trends, via Yahoo News, takes Google to task for the Panda aftermath, complete with screenshot examples.
The article points to several key Panda problems, in this wave as well as the prior one. First, “scraper sites” are still making it through. Secondly, it seems that U.K. sites get preferential treatment even in the U.S.
The third point is the most sinister. Following mention of Google’s list of questions for webmasters about site quality, writer Molly McHugh states:
“There’s ample concern that Google’s control over search means that it gets to determine the answers to these questions, many of which can vary widely due to personal opinion. And some sites have questioned the fact that no Google-owned properties have been negatively impacted.”
McHugh also points to a lack of response from Google to complaints from affected sites. Many eyes are on Google, which is warranted given its search stranglehold. Stephen E Arnold, the owner of this blog, has just completed his draft of his June 2011 Information Today column. For that interview, he spoke with Web masters who have suffered severe Panda bites. Bottom line: PageRank seems to be wrapped in layers of code which now reduces relevance to a lottery bet. Look for the column in Information Today Magazine sometime in the next three months. Ah, print! I think the Panda epidemic will still be with us then, however.
Cynthia Murrell May 18, 2011
Bitten by a Mad Panda?
May 16, 2011
SearchEngineWatch.com reports, “Google: Ask Yourself These 23 Questions if Panda Impacted Your Web Site.” In response to the outcry from sites that have been adversely affected by Google Panda’s reorganization of search rankings, Google has some questions for web masters to reflect upon. We noted:
Previously, beyond telling webmasters to identify and remove (or improve) low-quality or ‘shallow’ content, Google hasn’t had much to say. Until today, at least. In a new blog post on Google Webmaster Central, Google’s Amit Singhal has posted what he calls ‘guidance’ to webmasters in the form of 24 questions you should ask yourself as you go about recovering and determining ‘quality.’
The list of questions is too long to reproduce here, but the list seems pretty sensible to me. The article does, however, mention one flaw in the Panda’s procedures. It claims that “scrapers are outranking the original content in many cases.” Hmm.
What a mess SEO has wrought. Has Google caught the “soft revenue syndrome” or come down with a bad case of the “Facebook migraine”? I see the Panda crashing through the digital forest now. Gotta run.
Cynthia Murrell May 16, 2011
Panda and Google Shaping Generation Tools. Yes, Google Tools!
May 2, 2011
Search Engine Journal has posted “Web Content—6 Free Tools to Generate Great Ideas (and all from Google).” With these tools out there, no wonder Google has to deal with content that is not so hot. The article asserted:
Whether you are looking to write pages of content for your website, quick posts for Twitter or an interesting nugget for an email newsletter; sometimes it’s a challenge to come up with a regular source of ideas for content that will entice readers and help your search engine rankings.
We beg to differ—we do it all the time, and it’s not that hard!
However, if you’re looking for a quick fix, check out Google’s own tools for creating baloney. The piece elaborates on each of the six tools, which are:
- Google Alerts
- Google Reader
- Google Suggest
- Google AdWords Keyword Tool (The most blatant SEO churner.)
- Google Webmaster Tools
- Google Analytics
Panda may have its work load increased. One unit of Google helps Web masters generate content. Another part of Google wants that content to fit some poorly explained criteria. Knife edge if you ask me, assuming the source is spot on.
Cynthia Murrell, May 2, 2011
Freebie
More on the Panda DNA
May 1, 2011
I thought panda’s slept all day and focused on bamboo and being uncooperative with panda watchers’ picture taking. ZDNet announces that “Google Panda Algorithm Update Benefits News Sites.” Well, that’s good. Improving the rankings of real content was the point. Explains the article,
To test the changes and provide a rare glimpse into Google’s algorithmic workings, ZDNet UK’s sister site CNET News compiled nearly 100,000 results by testing Google.com in March and again on Friday after the most recent alterations took effect. News sites generally benefited from the changes.
However, not everyone is liking the Panda beastie. AccuraCastNews reports “Google Panda Update Seriously Affects Popular U.K. Sites.” The article notes the 10 sites in the U.K. whose rankings have fallen the most, and by how much, since the Panda was brought to life.
It fails to make a case, though, that these sites deserve to keep their previous pinnacles. In fact, they mention eHow.com, which suffered in both markets. Um, yeah. They’re one of those content farms Google was targeting.
The AccuraCastNews piece also lists the 10 U.K. sites that have benefitted the most from the new algorithm. Look for yourself to see whether you think the losses and gains make sense.
Cynthia Murrell May 1, 2011
Freebie just like those old May Day parades
SEO Revealed. Exclusive Interview with Peter Niemi
April 26, 2011
An interesting challenge faces search engine optimization experts. Charging hefty sums, SEO experts now have to cope with demanding clients and Google’s increasingly aggressive efforts to improve the relevance of its search services. After my talk in Manhattan at the end of March 2011, I was able to interview Peter Niemi, founder of GHG Interactive, the marketing arm of Gray Interactive. In our hour long conversation, Mr. Niemi said:
The SEO experts are reeling from Google’s crack down on gaming the Google relevance system. Some SEO professionals react poorly to evidence that they may not be the smartest guys in the room as we saw…The majority of Web sessions commence with search. That’s where the eyeballs start, but not where they end. That’s the first problem, the lack of persistence. How do you get a customer if the customer never comes back or forgets you in a second or two?
He continued:
The second problem is that SEO is a commodity. Everyone is doing it to some degree, from the smallest blog to the biggest consumer brand site. SEO requires constant managing to achieve consistent success. In the last couple of years, more and more effort seems to be needed to keep one’s head above water. Market forces, competition, and changing technology require marketing professionals to revisit our campaigns more and more often. Search media agencies charge nice monthly fees to perpetuate what I call a “search arms race.” Google makes $28 billion a year off search engine marketing. In my experience, neither Google nor the marketers are motivated to challenge the status quo. Like investment banks, they make a good living off the status quo and change is not in their best interests.
With some Web sites struggling to reverse declining traffic, SEO is in the spotlight. To read the full text of the interview with Mr. Niemi, read “Google Squeezes SEO Experts: The Panda Choke Hold”.
If you wish to comment on this insightful interview, please, use the comments function for this Web log.
Stephen E Arnold, April 26, 2011
Freebie unlike some SEO mid-tier inputs
Google Squeezes SEO Experts: The Panda Choke Hold
April 26, 2011
Introduction
In late March 2011, I gave a 15 minute talk at the iBreakfast Meeting in Manhattan. A few days earlier, I spoke at an Incisive conference in Hong Kong, delivering essentially the same message. In a nutshell, I pointed out that Google’s algorithm changes were only the tip of the iceberg regarding relevance improvement in search results. Search engine optimization or SEO has gamed the free Web indexes so that relevance is decreasing. The fix, I said, is to focus on content. My name for this approach is “content with intent.” The idea I told the two different groups is to create high value content and follow the basic rules of providing facts, sources, and useful information. SEO methods talk about content and then fall back on techniques that try to deliver something for nothing. When you run a query and get pages with no information, the click benefits the owner of the page and does absolutely nothing for the user when the page is without substance.
In Hong Kong, the audience reacted positively. The idea of publishing detailed information, providing sources for the information, and injecting original ideas was enervating. In New York, the opposite was true. I received a couple of emails with harsh, New York style comments. If I were 22, I suppose my feelings would have been hurt. At age 66, my reaction was, “Man, these people don’t understand the change that is upon them.”
I did get a couple of positive follow ups. One person was a stealth type financial analyst and we have talked via telephone. The other was feedback from Peter Niemi. I poked around and learned that Mr. Niemi was the founder of GHG Interactive, the digital marketing arm of the Grey Healthcare Group, in 1995. He was the senior executive until 2000. After more than a decade at Grey he joined Torre Lazur McCann led the team that designed and executed the Paxil Web presence for GlaxoSmithKline which remained one of the top ten pharmaceutical sites in the world until the Paxil patent expiration.
In 2001 Peter co-founded a hybrid technology-advertising agency called Hyphen, an Omnicom company. Hyphen built a software package for managing clinical trial data as well as an online experience guiding consumers through the complex details surrounding the fertility treatment process. Peter currently uses his digital marketing expertise to craft the launch strategies for early stage ventures. Peter earned his MBA at Columbia Business School and also holds a BA in English Literature from Columbia.
I spoke with Mr. Niemi on April 18, 2011. The full text of my interview with him appears below:
What drew you into search and content processing it seems far afield from English Literature and business school?
I spent my career in the ad agency world as the field of digital advertising evolved. This experience lead to my fascination with applying technology tools to the challenges of branding.
Search proved very useful when I was working on my MBA at Columbia Business School. I suppose it was that experience that hooked me on online and various other tools of high finance. I applied many of the modeling principles I learned to our world of digital marketing, and the result is the approach my colleagues and I use today in our work. It’s a quantitative methodology for approaching what is traditionally considered a qualitative challenge.
And the poems?
Still useful particularly the line from George Bernard Shaw: “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” In my work today, we have a small group with an entrepreneurial streak that motivates us to apply our methods to early stage and growth companies. Our mission is to deliver effective (and affordable!) digital marketing results for the next generation of great companies.
We also focus on results, skipping the economic theory stuff.
You reacted to my discussion of “content with intent” in a positive manner. Most of the search engine optimization professionals wanted to tar and feather me. What’s behind your interest in using content to generate impact?
Yep, the SEO experts are reeling from Google’s crack down on gaming the Google relevance system. Some SEO professionals react poorly to evidence that they may not be the smartest guys in the room as we saw.
There are two shortcomings to search marketing, persistence and commoditization. There is no doubt that SEO is a necessary part of any digital marketer’s toolkit, a critical element for digital marketing success. The majority of Web sessions commence with search. That’s where the eyeballs start, but not where they end. That’s the first problem, the lack of persistence. How do you get a customer if the customer never comes back or forgets you in a second or two? A successful approach includes search but must go further than that, surrounding a target audience with messaging at every touch point.
The second problem is that SEO is a commodity. Everyone is doing it to some degree, from the smallest blog to the biggest consumer brand site. SEO requires constant managing to achieve consistent success. In the last couple of years, more and more effort seems to be needed to keep one’s head above water. Market forces, competition, and changing technology require marketing professionals to revisit our campaigns more and more often. Search media agencies charge nice monthly fees to perpetuate what I call a “search arms race.” Google makes $28 billion a year off search engine marketing. In my experience, neither Google nor the marketers are motivated to challenge the status quo. Like investment banks, they make a good living off the status quo and change is not in their best interests.
Why is Google making changes?
There is growing concern about the relevance of search results. There is mixed information about big social search services are becoming. In the Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter world, SEO methods don’t work. SEO is like a mechanic who tries to fix a Ford with parts from a washing machine.
In the ad and marketing world, what’s the perception of SEO?
Agency people are wired to focus on the creative product as an end in itself, not the results it produces. There is some appreciation for the value of targeted SEO, but little awareness of the overwhelming power that a properly executed campaign can wield. Search is often an afterthought in the traditional marketing world, and there is not nearly enough understanding of how effective the tools of direct response marketers can be when applied branded messaging to create explosive mindshare growth.
In our practice we care about nothing but the results. In fact, we have long held that creative advertising awards such as the Addy Awards should be abolished. Creative achievement runs contrary to the best interests of the marketer. We are salesmen, not artists, and must be measured quantitatively, not aesthetically. If you want to paint, paint. If you want to sell, sell. There is no ambiguity.
Give me an example?
Sure, our creative director is enormously talented, truly a genius. But he does not lead the conversation about what we are going to do. The audience does that. The data do that. Once we’ve done the analysis then the rest of the team leaves him alone to work his magic. He creates content that works; content with intent. If he wins any creative awards he loses his key to the executive washroom.
But today, traffic generation techniques like SEO should be a marketer’s first concern. Conversion effectiveness should be the second. All content should be tailored to maximize those factors. Artistic quality doesn’t even enter the conversation.
I am delighted to discuss Shakespeare’s unique literary genius, just not while I am working. There were no content algorithms back then so as optimized language goes, his plays perform terrible and his sonnets are even worse.
What’s the impact of this new world?
Any digital marketing effort that is solely reliant on search for traffic is at the whim of the search engines, as we saw during Google’s recent formula changes. Web site owners too reliant on SEO find themselves under tremendous pressure to adapt to rule changes that can wipe out carefully built site traffic overnight. Just like investing, reliance on one property for too much of your returns is eventually going to let you down hard. The solution is to diversify. Successful digital marketers use a portfolio of techniques to minimize risk from any one source of revenue. The most powerful of these tools is semantic content crafted to deliver results that last. The problem is few know how to use this tool properly.
SEM and online advertising can certainly help to kick start traffic to a new site. Paid media can help to plug traffic holes created by changing conditions. Nothing, however, can substitute for the long term effectiveness of a thoughtful semantic campaign with content, creative, and search all working together to blanket a market with a message. Our approach will drive any idea to the top of every conversation, online and offline. This is true in any field. Branding. Politics. Entertainment. Direct sales.
Is there room for a different approach? The reaction to my talk in Hong Kong was positive. In Manhattan, it was mixed.
Aggressive marketers are always looking for competitive advantages. The pioneers recognize that the current state of search makes any gains temporary until the other guys figure out what you did and copy it. Next generation techniques are of great interest to these people out on the leading edge. Current methods find out where traffic is and then compete to capture it. Semantic techniques go where the traffic is going to be and own it. Ad agencies are figuring out what the early adopters of semantic advertising–our clients–are doing, but the entrepreneurs are a few steps ahead right now. Your content with intent method involves words, tactics, and technology. That’s a different bundle to shoulder.
In Hong Kong, the mobile device is the primary means of accessing digital content. What’s your view of the mobile revolution?
The practice of building web sites as marketing tools, online brochures, is dwindling in significance and has been for some time. This is not a short term situation for traditional communication methods. It is a long term trend that is increasing in momentum like a snowball rolling down a hill. Soon enough more than half of web sessions will be conducted from a mobile device, so the traditional web site is only part of the picture.
Marketers do recognize that and the standard response can be seen in the rush to roll out social media strategies and mobile apps. These are largely versions of marketing content repurposed for different platforms, hardly an innovative or disruptive approach. It’s also unsustainable, as platforms come and go, rise and fall in significance.
What is required is an approach that looks ahead, not back. An approach built for the future, not based on the past. That’s what we have created and employ for our clients. That’s the beauty of our semantic content and proprietary distribution engine.
Let’s jump back to Google. What’s your take on the company’s recent efforts to improve relevance for its search users?
Good question and a tough one.
Google’s recent moves put the pressure on Web marketers to adapt and improve their offerings to continue to see the results which they are accustomed to achieving. Hopefully it also puts pressure on them to diversify, a prescription we have been advocating for some time now. Google is dominant in search (and with YouTube, online video) and so remains a pivotal factor in any successful digital marketing portfolio.
For the most part, Google does not, however, create any content. For that they need the rest of the online world: advertisers, publishers, and sellers. Content creators. Without them there is no Google–at least not with a market cap of $185 billion.
Despite their lofty ideology, Google is a business like any other. To quote the company’s annual report:
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising.
By “primarily” Google’s wordsmiths seem to mean that more than 95% of their income comes from paid advertising through the AdWords and AdSense networks. That’s where they make their revenue and as a public company they have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to maximize that revenue.
The recent changes were in service of driving revenue by increasing the quality and effectiveness, and thus the cost, of that advertising. Plain and simple.
Google does not have any issue with so-called “content farms” except that they drive down advertising prices through redundant and low quality content. After we recognize that we can move on to addressing the recent shifts, which are significant for all of us, content farmers or not.
Blog Power and Search
April 11, 2011
When you have a great headline, you get traffic. What about the facts? Well, maybe those are less important than the ping pong effect of a hot write up within a search and retrieval system. Confused? Well, you are anchored in the old school of SEO or search engine optimization.
Here’s an example of the new way to get traffic even though one’s reputation as a business expert may pick up some NASCAR dents on the way to the finish line.
First, Bloomberg ran a story called “New York Times Fixes Paywall Flaws to Balance Free Versus Paid on the Web” on January 28, 2011. I certainly did not really care. I read the paper version of the newspaper and routinely ignore the online stuff that flows from the old line New York outfits. I live in Kentucky and the day or two old news is pretty much real time for us in Harrod’s Creek.
But, bloggers picked up the story. In the February and March period lots of trendy Web news sites recycled what little information was available. This blog is not a “No Agenda” type outlet, so you can read the hits available at this link and follow the thread of the $40 million nugget.
The loop approached its starting point. Navigate to “Sulzberger: $40 Million Estimate For Paywall Cost Is ‘Vastly Wrong’”. (I like the word “vastly” by the way.) Here’s one passage I found interesting:
Sulzberger also declined to offer any numbers when it comes to subscribers, saying it was too soon but that the company would provide some details eventually. At another point, asked about complaints that the pay plan is too complex, he urged people to be patient. Noting that the company was able to tweak the system between the launch in Canada and the U.S.-global launch 10 days later, Sulzberger said: “We’re going to learn, adapt, make it simpler. But I don’t agree that it’s too complex. It’s new. Let it breathe for a little bit before you make judgment.”
The notion of learning, adapting, and making things simpler sound great.
The point is not what the Times spent or did not spend. The point is not that the New York Times has since it broke its exclusive deal with LexisNexis decades ago has been trying to figure out how to make money without selling hard copies and advertising is also irrelevant.
The message here is that one story with a fact plucked from somewhere can trigger a surge of articles, links, and clicks. Then the point of origin of the “story” jumps in and re-energizes the cycle.
That’s the message for me. SEO cannot perform this type of information physics. Why am I beating up on search engine optimization charlatans? Indexes like Google’s have been corrupted by these outfits. Relevance problems annoy me. At least with crazy information physics activities, the focus is on content no matter how thin, inaccurate, or poorly formed. Honk.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2011
Freebie unlike my print subscription to the New York Times blue plastic bag. The paper, I think, is free. Those plastic bags cost me a leg and a thigh.
SEO Experts and Content Farmers Face Pandapocalypse
April 6, 2011
Stephen E Arnold, managing director of ArnoldIT.com and this writer’s nominal taskmaster, annoyed some of the SEO poobahs in Manhattan on Wednesday, March 30. Now Mr. Arnold is an old goose and has avoided becoming a Thanksgiving dinner for more than six decades. A little roasting in the Big Apple does not trouble the chief goose.
In his debrief, what was interesting was the reluctance of the Manhattan search engine optimization crowd to realize that the game of metatagging, backlink fiddling, and other SEO “secret methods” are going to continue to loose effectiveness. The shift has a number of contributing factors. These range from Google’s fear of losing online advertising traction to the younger crowd’s penchant for asking Facebook “friends” where to buy a pizza. Google for Facebook revenues. Not so hot for the Google which is in the midst of a giant wood burning stove. (Wood burning stoves frighten the feathered Mr. Arnold.)
We wanted to throw a small life preserver to the SEO experts who were so agitated at Mr. Arnold’s suggestion that SEO was in a heap of sticky tar. Search Engine Watch has published a round up of trick to fool the Google Panda. We love it when SEO articles include the word “tricks”. We prefer phrases like “money burners,” “tom foolery”, and “questionable practices.” But “Pandapocalypse” it is.
As you may know if you were one of the 25 percent of Web sites down checked by the Google Panda algorithm change, Google launched its new pet Panda to curtail content farms and improve its accuracy algorithm. Some web sites are experiencing a loss of Google rankings and traffic, but “Is the Google Pandapocalypse Near for the UK and Beyond?” offers insights to avoid the Panda’s wraith. The most sites affected by the Panda launch were content, health, and e-commerce. In response, Google suggests that companies focus on brand advertisement than relying solely on the search engine to generate traffic.
From this angle, web site proprietors should consider using a paid search, social media, newsletters, videos, and Google news/images. When applied carefully and effectively, each suggestion will bring more visitors to a page. Here’s a snippet for the SEO folks who are trying to explain why those SEO fees produced a negative drift for their increasingly curious clientele:
“One of the big ideas at SES New York was “content optimization.” Google and Bing are looking for quality content. Basically, consider Google a teacher, and your site the student. The Panda algorithm is a brand new grading system, so you must aim to make your site an A, rather than a B or C+. And as with any teacher, some students may not be graded in the same way as others for whatever reason.”
Take a look at your web site and see how it can be improved. Check the spelling and grammar, tone down the ads, minimize duplicate content and links from low quality web sites, fix broken links, and clean up your source code. Following these suggestions will help you overcome Panda and will definitely improve your web site’s quality.
A trick may work, just not consistently. Unfortunately, clients of SEO companies are asked to pay SEO invoices consistently. There is going to be dissonance going forward.
Whitney Grace, April 6, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
